Untitled

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

Is technology good or bad?

It depends on how you use it.

There is much anxiety around the effects of technology on our brains. One in three parents in the UK believe their child is in danger from the internet, and more than this believe that it can “rewire” your brain without your knowledge.

The truth is that our brains are plastic – they can and do change in structure - but not just as result of using technology. All sorts of experiences, including education, cause structural changes to our brains. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just the way brains work.  

Some people worry about the “Google Effect”. We don’t need to remember facts anymore; we rely on search engines to remember for us. But we’ve not stopped remembering - we’ve changed the way we use memory. These days, you are more likely to remember where the information was, than the information itself. More experienced internet users use all sorts of different brain functions whilst web-browsing, including reasoning and decision-making, using more of their brains, not less.

In the 1990s, internet use was linked to reduced social-connectedness and wellbeing. These days when social networks are used to support real-life friendships they actually have the opposite effect.

Aggressive video games can “teach” aggression, but likewise pro-social games can teach empathy. Video games can, in only a few hours, improve hand-eye co-ordination – resulting in better performance of both pilots and surgeons.

The timing of technology use is important. When we sleep our brains are busy replaying events of the day and consolidating memories and learning. Small bright screens may reduce melatonin, a chemical which helps us sleep properly and interrupted sleep makes you forget information.

Technology itself is neither good nor bad. It’s all about making healthy choices about how and when you use it.

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

Does dyslexia exist?

One description is that dyslexia means failing to learn to read, despite average intelligence and educational opportunity.

Studies of twins have shown that reading difficulties are strongly inherited, but “dyslexia genes” can’t be isolated. There are many different genes involved, and the same genes that contribute to reading difficulties also seem to be involved in reading skills in the more able. And as not all dyslexic identical twins have a dyslexic twin, genetics is not the whole story.

Babies who later go on to develop dyslexia have measurably different brain activity to babies who do not end up dyslexic. So the neuroscience seems to suggest it is real. But not everyone who is at risk of developing dyslexia will end up with reading difficulties.

There are many different interventions used in schools to support dyslexic children. But these involve the same sorts of activities that are good for all early readers. A more useful question might be: Is it useful to label children as dyslexic?

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

Investment in early education is important. But investment should not be restricted to the Early Years. Further research is needed to better understand how best to spend money on education.

Over recent years, there has been much talk about when to invest in education. The Early Years has become an obvious target for funding (in the UK and the US). The importance of pre-school education is easily accepted. This is partly due to the idea that “learning begets learning”. Invest early and maximise results The problem is, this is just a model - not evidence.

And the evidence just doesn’t match up. Neuroscience has shown that there are times during development where it is easier to learn a specific skill. For example, it is much harder to learn a language if it uses sounds you didn’t hear before you were six months old. Lots of these “sensitive periods” occur in the early years, lending weight to Heckmann’s model.  But some sensitive periods occur much later on, during the teenage years. And our brains are capable of making new connections throughout our lives.

Heckmann, who created the model above, has more recently created a new model based on evidence. In this new model he looks at different types of learning and the take-home message is significantly different: Invest early in the most disadvantaged.

There is still work to be done in this area to perfect this model of educational investment further, but if policy-makers started looking at Heckmann’s newer ideas, instead of the tempting simple model he originally proposed, that would be a step in the right direction.

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

Genetics has an impact on school success. But what should we do about it? (Part 2 of 2)

Currently, schools in the UK are focussed almost entirely on environmental impacts. The assumption is that almost every child is a blank slate on which teaching leaves an equal mark. If we give everyone the same education they’ll all do as well as each other, right? Well we now know that’s wrong, but what should schools do about it?

Our state education system as it stands gives the impression of equality for all, but only serves to magnify genetic differences. When the learning environment is the same, any difference in achievement is down to genetics. Experts suggest a move towards a personalised curriculum, where each child receives an education tailored to their individual abilities. Some schools are already trialling this, with great success.

This change is a controversial one, and practical considerations may get in the way. It is also politically sensitive: the recognition of genetic difference could be twisted to support the old grammar system. But remember, that system simply divided children into two groups (grammar and secondary modern schools): a far cry from truly personalised learning. One school for all, where children can maximise their individual talents and interests across the curriculum, could be much more effective.

Hopefully, in the future our children’s successes will be due to teaching which makes the most of their genetic differences, not a system that ignores them.

Want to know more?

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

Genetics does impact achievement in schools, but that’s not the whole story. (Part 1 of 2)

It can seem a controversial statement: our genes have a say in how well we do at school. It sounds deterministic: why bother with hard work if our genes are in charge of our final grades? But it’s not all bad news. It is not the case that “good genes” mean ‘A’s and having “bad” genes leaves you with no hope of top marks. Genetics is only part of the story.

As it turns out, genetics seems to count for about half of the difference between people’s grades, with the environment contributing the other half. You could say that it’s a case of Nature AND Nurture.

But what do we mean by environment? There’s the environment inside of each of your cells, which has an impact on how your DNA is expressed. Then there’s the environment at home. A balanced diet and good sleep are both key to maximising learning. And of course, there’s the environment at school: the classrooms, teachers, study materials and other students.

Importantly, changes in your environment can affect your genes. Even identical twins, with identical DNA sequences, show differences in the way their genes are processed.

The take away message here is that both your genetics and your environment can interact with each other and influence how well you do at school.

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

Learning Styles in the Classroom : Are they helpful?

When I think of Learning Styles, I immediately think of VAK. “VAK your teaching, not your children,” I was told as new teacher. But what does that mean?

The idea is that children (and adults for that matter) have a preferred way in which they learn: through the Visual (reading), Auditory (listening), or Kinaesthetic (touching). And people do have preferences. I like to be able to read information, not hear it. I guess that makes me a “visual learner”. There are plenty of quizzes you can take online to find out your favourite style. Most people are complicated though. I don’t always like to read to learn. Sometimes I prefer to “learn by doing” so I’m a visual learner with a strong dose of kinaesthetic too.

VAK-ing your children would involve finding out each of their preferred styles and teaching them in their preferred way. Anyone who’s been in a Primary School classroom knows that teachers work hard to personalise learning, but teaching the same lesson three times in three different ways just isn’t practical. And is there any point? There is actually no scientific evidence that teaching someone in their preferred learning style improves their learning.

So if you can’t VAK your children, how do you VAK your teaching? By making sure each lesson has a visual, an auditory and a kinaesthetic or practical element. As it happens, there is plenty of evidence that providing the same information in different ways does improve learning. So my teacher-trainer might just have been on to something.

[thelearningteacher-blog1]

What’s the brain got to do with learning anyway?

As teacher’s we’ve all been there: the PGCE lecture or INSET day where you’re told to teach in a particular way. They’ll learn more; it’s good for their brains. Trust us, we know about clever stuff like Brain Science. It’s proven by Experts. So, no need to ask how this new strategy works, or why, then? Or who, in fact, the experts are, and what they might be expert at?

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be examining a few of the more popular neuroscientific ideas which have made their way into schools and sorting the fact from the neuro-science fiction.